MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fault Diagnosis and Prognosis of Aerospace Systems Using Growing Recurrent Neural Networks and LSTM

2021· article· en· W3167545907 on OpenAlexafffund
Musab ElDali, Krishna Dev Kumar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPrognosticsArtificial neural networkAerospaceComputer scienceFault (geology)Fault tree analysisProcess (computing)Fault detection and isolationRecurrent neural networkArtificial intelligenceData miningEngineeringReliability engineeringActuator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the increase in complexity in aerospace systems, developing a diagnosis, prognosis, and health monitoring (DPHM) framework is a challenge that must be considered to assure the safety of such systems. This paper discusses this problem by proposing an artificial intelligence technique based on two novel neural networks, the growing neural networks (GNN) and variable sequence LSTM (VarLSTM) model to automate the process of DPHM for aerospace systems. For single-unit datasets, the proposed model estimates a Health Index value using the residuals between the measured telemetry data and the one predicted using the GNN algorithm, and then the HI value is extrapolated for prognostics. For multiple-units datasets, the model makes RUL predictions by directly mapping the RUL of the training units to their corresponding measured features at every measured instant. In this paper, the model optimizes the architecture of a recurrent neural network and was used to make RUL predictions for aircraft engines and detect failure for satellite attitude actuators (Reaction Wheels). It was tested on the CMAPSS and PHM08 aircraft engine datasets (multiple-unit datasets) simulated by NASA, and it was able to make RUL predictions with root mean square errors as low as 14 engine cycles. Another application to test the proposed model was on the Kepler Spacecraft's reaction wheels from which two have failed (single-unit datasets). The model detected the failure of the two failed reaction wheels by estimating a HI value which indicates the probability of failure of the reaction wheels using the residuals between the speed predictions made by the model and measured speed values. Failure was detected using the model almost 105 days and 54 days for reaction wheels two and four respectively. Prognostics were also applied on the Kepler Mission reaction wheels and RUL predictions were made with mean absolute errors ranging between 2-13 days depending on how close the reaction wheel is to fail when the prediction is made. The proposed artificial intelligence algorithm shows promising results in system fault diagnosis and prognosis leading to the development of smart systems for aerospace applications.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207